TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (4) TMI 530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt had jurisdiction, the first Appellate Court held otherwise. Accepting the revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') the High Court by the impugned judgment held that the trial Court's view was correct. The dispute arose in the following background. The plaintiff No.2 had purchased certain articles which were booked in 29 bales. Material was booked with New Moga Transport Co., the present appellant (defendant No.1) for transportation to Barnala. The goods were loaded in truck No. HYN 6973. The consignment reached Barnala at 9.30 a.m. on 23.5.1993 near the factory of plaintiff No.2. On account of a fire which took place allegedly due to electric shortcircuiting there was destruction of who....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned counsel for the appellant (defendant No.1) submitted that the High Court has clearly over-looked the fact that the parties by an agreement have fixed a particular Court to be the Court that has the jurisdiction to try the suit. Without any plausible reason or basis the High court upset the decision of the first Appellate Court. Undisputedly, in the consignment note it was stated as follows: "The Court at Head office city shall only be the jurisdiction in respect of all claims and matters arising under the consignment at the goods entrusted for transport". Additionally, at the top of the consignment note the jurisdiction has been specified to be with Udaipur Court. With reference to the aforesaid indication in the consignment not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the consignment note refers to the Head Office without specifying as to where the head office was. In view of the vague indication it cannot be said that the parties by agreement excluded the jurisdiction of one of the Courts. It is, therefore, not possible to know as to whether the Court referred to in Clause 16 in the consignment note refers to any particular Court having jurisdiction or was unconnected with the jurisdiction. Similar question has been examined by this Court on several occasions. Section 20 of CPC reads as follows: "Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.-Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that it cannot be sued there because it does not carry on business at that place. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 inter alia refer to a Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant inter alia "carries on business". Clause (c) on the other hand refers to a Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. On a plain reading of the Explanation to Section 20 CPC it is clear that Explanation consists of two parts, (i) before the word "or" appearing between the words "office in India" and the word "in respect of" and the other thereafter. The Explanation applies to a defendant which is a Corporation which term would include even a company. The first part of the Explanation applies....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of any cause of action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence." This Explanation dealt with the case of place of residence of the defendant and provided with regard to a person having a permanent dwelling at one place and also temporary at another place that such person shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence. The language used in Explanation II on the other hand which is the present Explanation was entirely different. Had the intention been that if a corporation had its principal office at one place and a subordinate office at another place and the cause of action arose at the place where it had its subordinate office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arly, when the consignment note itself had indicated that Court at Udaipur alone had jurisdiction. As was observed by this Court in Shriram's case (supra) referring to Hakam Singh's case (supra) an agreement affecting jurisdiction of Courts is not invalid. It is open to the parties to choose any one of the two competent Courts to decide the disputes. Once the parties bound themselves as such it is not open for them to choose a different jurisdiction. Above being the factual and legal position, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Curt was not justified in upsetting the order of First Appellate Court. It is not a case where the chosen Court did not have jurisdiction. The only question, therefore, related to exclusion of the other Cou....